Many Americans believe the Supreme Court rulings on Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)—landmark cases banning prayer and Bible reading from public schools—effectively removed all forms of religious activity during educational hours.
As a result of these decisions, and the incessant drumming of “separation of church and state,” mainstream society now considers it unconstitutional to read Scripture or bow one’s head on government property. Every generation since 1963 has gone along with this diabolical rhetoric that blatantly violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
“Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech…”
Truly, the progressive left succeeded in its efforts to (morally) overthrow the United States.
At issue, in 1962, was a nondenominational prayer recited alongside the Pledge of Allegiance in K-12 schools:
“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”
These 22 words pose no threat to anyone’s sincerely held beliefs. Although prayer was a standard part of every school day before 1962, students and staff members were not mandated to participate in the invocation. Nevertheless, anti-God activists have always deemed public prayer—that is, calling upon a higher power than government—an act that goes against the First Amendment. So, under the guise of nondiscrimination, several state laws were amended to abolish religious activities in public schools and bar educators from sharing their faith.
Don’t misunderstand what’s really at play. The false “church and state” narrative as well as the prohibition of Scripture and prayer are all aimed at one religion: Christianity. The progressive left wasn’t hellbent on expelling every god from mainstream society—they specifically intended to eliminate the God of the Bible (namely Jesus Christ) and silence His followers. Once God and Christianity were declared unlawful on school grounds, an alternative moral/religious code came into effect.
In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watson—just one year before God and prayer were banned from public education—the Supreme Court asserted that “secular humanism” (a form of atheism) was a religion fully protected by the First Amendment. If you will, the religion of unbelief is now considered to be legally and morally on par with Christianity. Yet only the former is allowed in public schools.
Of course, parents don’t recognize that their children are absorbing secular humanism because the doctrine is masked by minimal education requirements. Secular humanism is bright red lipstick on a filthy pig. If your child’s K-12 school requires a class or an assignment in the following subject areas, they’ve likely been indoctrinated with secular humanist dogma:
Evolutionary Theory—secular Creation Story
Social Studies—secular civil code (falsely teaches America is a democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic founded on Judeo-Christian principles)
Social Emotional Learning—secular moral code (falsely teaches restorative justice)
God may not be permitted on school grounds, but the religion of secular humanism is alive and well.
In his 2007 book “Separation of Church and State: What the Founders Meant,” David Barton wrote:
“[F]ollowing the 1962-1963 court-ordered removal of religious principles from students, teenage pregnancies immediately soared over 700 percent, with the United States recording the highest teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world. Similarly, sexual activity among fifteen year olds skyrocketed, and sexually transmitted diseases among students ascended to previously unrecorded levels. In fact, virtually every moral measurement kept by federal cabinet-level agencies reflects the same statistical pattern: the removal of religious principles from the public sphere was accompanied by a corresponding decline in public morality.
Furthermore, consider the fact that suicide is one of the top five leading causes of death among children aged 12 to 19. Homicide among 15 to 29 year olds makes up 40% of the total number of homicides worldwide each year. There’s not enough time to discuss the increase in school mass shooting incidents over the last two decades.
Every case of teen violence and sexual deviance may not be directly linked to secular humanistic education. However, after nearly 18 years of being told you evolved from nothing, you’re a “clump of cells” with no inherent worth or purpose beyond the present moment—what reaction should we realistically expect other than rage and rebellion?
Parents choose public schools for a number of reasons, ranging from convenience to affordability to sports. And while there’s no shame in keeping certain traditions, it’s clear that America’s public education system is on the verge of total moral collapse. The emergence of “trans” activists coupled with the lack of basic social/survival skills among youths is evident. Ignorance is willful at this point.
According to Proverbs 22:6, God holds parents primarily responsible for educating their children. If we don’t want them indoctrinated with a secular humanistic worldview—one that says gender is fluid, America is systemically racist, and God is dead—then it’s time to abandon public education. This is one sure way to conserve family values, strengthen our nation’s moral foundation, and secure the freedom of future generations.
The Trump administration has been hard at work dismantling offices of “environmental justice” in the federal government.
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it began implementing Trump’s executive order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” The agency placed on leave 171 employees in DEI and environmental justice offices.
The EPA intends to close the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, The Washington Post reported. Trump appointees at the Justice Department announced they would restructure the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.
Shortly after her confirmation, Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded any “memoranda, guidance, or similar directive that implement the prior administration’s ‘environmental justice’ agenda.”
“Going forward, the Department will evenhandedly enforce all federal civil and criminal laws, including environmental laws,” Bondi noted.
Why does this matter?
“Environmental justice” refers to the toxic brew of critical race theory and climate alarmism. According to critical race theory, America is institutionally racist against black people and other minorities and in favor of white people. According to climate alarmism, the burning of fossil fuels will bring about Armageddon.
The EPA defines “environmental justice” as ensuring that Americans “are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers” (emphasis added).
Trump entered office promising to unleash American energy and reverse the Biden administration’s promotion of critical race theory and its application in the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” movement. This diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) movement aims to promote some racial minorities, rejecting the colorblind approach of focusing on merit or competence.
While President George H.W. Bush established the EPA’s Office of Environmental Equity — the office that President Bill Clinton would later rename the Office of Environmental Justice — President Joe Biden hypercharged its mission, directing all-of-government efforts on DEI, restrictions on fossil fuels, and a promotion of less reliable forms of energy, like wind and solar.
In doing so, Biden followed the demands of activist groups, many of which staffed and advised his administration.
As I note in my book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government,” Biden tapped climate alarmists for key leadership positions.
Biden picked Michael Regan, a vice president at the Environmental Defense Fund, to head up the EPA. He selected Laura Daniel-Davis, a vice president at the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), to serve at the Department of the Interior. He nominated Tracey Stone-Manning, another NWF staffer who confessed to typing out a letter on behalf of tree-spiking eco-terrorists, to head the Bureau of Land Management.
Gina McCarthy, who headed EPA under President Barack Obama, became president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) until Biden appointed her national climate adviser.
When Trump moved against the EPA’s environmental justice office, NRDC released a statement condemning the move as a “disgrace.” Who did NRDC enlist to make the statement? None other than Matthew Tejada, who directed the Office of Environmental Justice from 2013 to 2022.
“The Trump EPA is abandoning the communities across our nation that need help the most,” Tejada said. “Shuttering the environmental justice office will mean more toxic contaminants, dangerous air, and unsafe water in communities across the nation that have been most harmed by pollution in the past.”
That conclusion, of course, relies on the assumptions of critical race theory and climate alarmism, however. If America is not institutionally racist but rather a country with civil rights laws that protect citizens of all races from discrimination, the EPA does not need an “environmental justice” office to combat pollution for Americans of specific skin colors.
If the predictions of climate disaster are overblown and based on false assumptions that exaggerate the risks when actual deaths from climate disaster have declined by 99% over the past century, then perhaps the EPA need not invest extra funds in an office of environmental justice. If fossil fuels have gotten substantially cleaner, perhaps the EPA should focus on specific air quality issues, rather than premonitions of global climate doom.
This seems to be at least part of the reasoning behind EPA’s restructure.
“Under President Trump, the EPA will be focused on our core mission to protect human health and the environment, while Powering the Great American Comeback,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement Tuesday. “The previous Administration used DEI and Environmental Justice to advance ideological priorities, distributing billions of dollars to organizations in the name of climate equity. This ends now.”
“We will be good stewards of tax dollars and do everything in our power to deliver clean air, land, and water to every American, regardless of race, religion, background, and creed,” he added.
While pollution affects Americans in different ways, the EPA need not indulge in critical race theory and climate alarmism to effectively combat the real threats Americans face. Rather than addressing supposed institutional racism and fossil fuel-induced disaster, the EPA should focus on its actual mission: protecting Americans from concrete instances of pollution and environmental harms.
Of course, those humdrum concerns don’t require as much federal funding and staff — and that might explain the real reason behind the Left’s freakout over Trump’s move.
Tyler O’Neil is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, managing editor of The Daily Signal, and the author of two books: “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” and “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.”
The newly elected Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) board president is a conservative mother, declining to re-elect the sitting president.
PUSD elected its new president, Heather Rooks, during Thursday’s regular board meeting following their 8-hour study session. Members Janelle Bowles, Jeff Tobey, and Becky Proudfit voted for Rooks, with only board member Melissa Ewing voting against. Ewing didn’t provide an explanation for her “no” vote.
Proudfit attempted to re-elect herself, but only Ewing voted for her.
Public comment on the board president election expressed hope in the prospect of new leadership.
One mother and community advocate, Nikki Eancheff, explained that Rooks helped her navigate school procedures after her daughter encountered a boy in a girls’ restroom at Liberty High School.
“What Mrs. Rooks said earlier today in the retreat, that she was elected by parents to be our voice and be our champion and advocate here in the board room and the district level is the truth,” said Eancheff.
Several other mothers also expressed their overt support for Rooks due to her prioritization of parents while backing public schools.
Kristen Balthis with the Peoria Principals’ Association said that while their organization didn’t endorse any one candidate, they supported the candidate that “can facilitate the education environment that allows our children to thrive.”
Teddy Todd, who has spoken out against PUSD board policies before, expressed her pleasure with the makeup of the governing board for this year, and said she hoped the president would foster “trust, hope, and collaboration” among all members.
However, those aligned with the teachers’ unions disagreed with some parents’ desire for change.
Trina Berg, president of the Peoria Education Association (PEA), asked for the reelection of Becky Proudfit for board president. PEA is part of the Arizona Education Association and the National Education Association. Berg questioned whether Rooks’ lawsuit against PUSD presented a conflict of interest.
In September 2023, Rooks sued PUSD for prohibiting her from quoting Bible verses during board meetings. The First Liberty Institute is representing Rooks in her case, which is ongoing. The Arizona District Court scheduled in-person oral argument for Friday in the case.
Berg also said that Rooks didn’t exhibit the qualities of a president, citing her past decisions to step out of executive meetings she felt should be public as well as Rooks’ decision to not silence certain speech from her supporters.
“Allowing misconceptions and sometimes downright misinformation to flourish and move through your group of supporters on social media without any correction is not leadership material,” said Berg.
Devon Moseler, vice president of PEA, also asked for the reelection of Proudfit for board president.
“We may not always agree with decisions that have been made, but we have appreciated the transparency and willingness to discuss challenging topics in an effort to understand the needs of our educators, administrators, and students,” said Moseler.
Proudfit’s husband, Taylor Proudfit, urged the board members to change their minds on Rooks and vote for his wife. Taylor claimed that board members supporting Rooks weren’t voting in accordance with their constituents.
Rooks’ rise to the leadership position came, in part, from the elections of new members Bowles and Tobey, ensuring the board’s flip to a majority of more conservative-minded members.
In recent years, the PUSD board came under community and even national scrutiny for adopting policies that favored progressive ideologies. This included the alignment with the Biden administration’s interpretation of Title IX which ordered schools to allow bathroom or locker room access based on gender identity. Ewing was one of the defendants of that policy, arguing that discrimination based on gender identity violates Title IX protections.
Rooks attended PUSD and graduated from Sunrise Mountain High School. Rooks first took office in January 2023.
Rooks’ campaign platform prioritized parental rights, academics, and organizational transparency. She ran in opposition to mandates for masks and COVID vaccines, Critical Race Theory ideology, and sexual content materials in classrooms.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) will no longer be using X to stay engaged with the community, with the given reason being a lack of a “family-friendly” environment.
SUSD made the announcement last week, also alluding to board policy necessitating their ceasing the use of X. The district will remain on Facebook and Instagram instead.
“In line with board policy IJNDB and our commitment to safety, SUSD schools are stepping away from X to prioritize family-friendly engagement,” said SUSD. “For updates, find us on Facebook, Instagram, or visit http://susd.org. Let’s stay connected in spaces that uphold our values.”
In line with board policy IJNDB and our commitment to safety, SUSD schools are stepping away from X to prioritize family-friendly engagement. For updates, find us on Facebook, Instagram, or visit https://t.co/EN0kZ8ruFl. Let’s stay connected in spaces that uphold our values. pic.twitter.com/ZJUyD9fi8D
— Scottsdale Unified School District (@ScottsdaleUSD) November 12, 2024
IJNDB refers to policy on the use of technology resources in instruction. Per that policy, the district implements technology protections against visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or content which may be discerned as harmful to minors.
Yet, the district allows children access to sexually explicit books and content in its libraries and classrooms.
In stepping away from the use of X, the district also remarked that X failed to align with its values. In addition to protections for sexually explicit materials, SUSD holds values such as transgenderism in minors, social emotional learning, and critical race theory.
SUSD made their announcement a week after Election Day, when Donald Trump won the presidency and Republicans secured a trifecta.
Tech billionaire and Tesla CEO Elon Musk bought Twitter (now X) for the express purpose of preserving and supporting free speech following the 2020 election. During that election, the silencing of certain right-wing voices occurred under social media platforms such as Twitter and Big Tech companies.
SUSD lost nearly 500 students over the course of this past year, amounting to millions in lost revenue. The auditor general has scored the district as “high risk” due to its continued decline in enrollment. Enrollment has declined 10 percent under the tenure of SUSD Superintendent Scott Menzel, and reports have emerged of record staff turnover.
Additionally, SUSD spending on classrooms and teachers have hit another historical low for this school year: 54 percent versus nearly 64 percent from 20 years ago, just over the lowest fiscal year (2017, which amounted to 53 percent).
Parent watchdog group Scottsdale Unites for Education Integrity said the nine percent decrease signified a $40 million redirection of funds from academic achievement.
Menzel also enjoyed a pay raise earlier this semester despite falling short of academic performance goals: achievements in math, English-Language Arts (ELA), and science fell below desired outcomes. Over 8,000 students weren’t proficient in ELA, over 9,000 weren’t proficient in math, and over 12,000 weren’t proficient in science.
The only goals which Menzel accomplished were nonacademic, and they amounted to less than half of the goals set: increases in attendance rates, student participation in extracurricular and cocurricular activities, and certified staff retention; an establishment of a baseline for work-based learning opportunities and hours completed using Major Clarity; and production of a decision-making matrix and at least one proposal for action by June.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The notion of color-blindness derives from the principle that moral persons of conscience should disregard race in judging their fellow human beings. It is a sincere aspiration but not necessarily meant as a description of reality. It was once considered a non-controversial mainstay of the American ethos.
No longer. The term “color-blind” has become an object of scorn among America’s elite. The usual crowd directing our national groupthink has determined that proclaiming color-blindness is intentionally deceptive, simply a cheap cover for racism.
Thus, Critical Race Theory guru Ibram X. Kendi informs us that the most threatening racist movement is not the “alt-right’s drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s desire for a race-neutral one.’ Best-selling author Robin DiAngelo claims that the color-blind strategy boils down to “pretend we don’t see race and racism will end.”
One critic alleges that color blindness was “developed in the neo-conservative think tanks during the 1970s.” Another condemns color blindness as “part of a long-standing whiteness protection program, associated with indigenous dispossession, colonial conquest, slavery, segregation, and immigrant exclusion.”
It’s not clear where these professors acquired their bizarre claims, but the historical record tells a far different story. The ideal of color-blindness was not birthed in some loony right-wing outpost but was the philosophical basis of the fight against slavery. As author Coleman Hughes points out, color-blindness was the driving passion of civil rights leaders from Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther King.
Wendell Phillips, known as “abolition’s golden trumpet,” called in 1865 for the “creation of a government color-blind” in which all laws referencing race would be repealed. Later, the idea of color-blindness was the inspiration for the battle against Jim Crow.
In the 1896 Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, which affirmed the discredited “separate but equal” doctrine, the lone dissent was from Justice John Marshall Harlan. His declaration still rings through the ages that “our constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens.”
When then-NAACP attorney Thurgood Marshall, later a Supreme Court Justice, argued segregation cases in the courts, he referred often to the Plessy dissent. “Our constitution is color-blind” became the mantra of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Color-blindness in the 1940s was the first demand of the original March on Washington, which successfully pressured FDR to integrate the defense industry. Color-blindness was also the first argument made in the NAACP’s appellate brief supporting the Brown v. Board decision, which finally reversed the Plessy decision in the 50s.
Americans sometimes forget how much progress was made when color-blindness was the guiding principle driving racial progress. By the 1950s, America was clearly lifting itself out of its deeply racist past. Economic opportunities for blacks were burgeoning. Black families and churches were strong. A solid black middle class was forming while black professionals and political leaders became more common.
So, what happened? How did we end up with a race-drenched public life where “systemic racism” is considered the accepted explanation for just about everything bad that happens. Award-winning public intellectuals teach that the races are inherently different and that treating individuals differently based on race is not only acceptable but desirable.
Citizens grounded in the philosophy of individual liberty are difficult for centralized government to control. The Marxist-inspired left clearly wants Americans to identify as members of an oppressed group, be it race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Life’s failures and disappointments can then be blamed on racism, even where none is readily apparent, and used to stoke racial resentments. Any successes or achievements are attributed not to individual merit or diligence but to the privileges bestowed on favored groups by government.
Ward Connerly, a leader in the anti-affirmative action movement, tells critics “I don’t care what color you are. Do you care what color I am?” That simple question may be the key to a brighter racial future.
Americans must decide if we really want to turn away from our Enlightenment-based notions of racial equality and once again embrace sanctioned racism. We will never achieve a society in which race really doesn’t matter if we can’t agree on the most basic principle of all— absolute equality granted by the Creator.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
